On my radio show on Monday, I was discussing a recent article by ESPN's Andy Katz that ranked Syracuse #4 in his latest Mens Basketball Preseason Basketball Poll (I know. I know. It is only May).

Here is what Katz said about Syracuse.

"The Orange suddenly look like the best team in the Big East with their only significant departure being Rick Jackson. Syracuse didn't get bit by the early-entry bug, as Kris Joseph stayed put. The backcourt of Scoop Jardine and Brandon Triche will be the most experienced in the Big East. Adding McDonald's All-American center Rakeem Christmas and shooting guard Michael Carter-Williams make the Orange even stronger in 2012."

This led me down the path of a discussion that seems to come up often on my radio show and with SU fans in general.

The theory goes that in seasons where the expectations are high, Syracuse usually falls short.

In seasons where the expectations are low, Syracuse excels.

The most famous example of the latter being when Syracuse wasn't even ranked in the preseason prior to the 2002-03 season when they eventually won the national title.

I put it out there on the radio that someone should go back and check the preseason rankings vs the end of season results in the Jim Boeheim era and see how they match up.

That is where Steven Chappell comes in.

Steven, a frequent caller to my radio show, dug in and did the research on that very topic. He sent me a copy of his work and also posted it on Syracusefan.com

Whether you think preseason rankings are worthless or a good barometer of what a team should accomplish in any given season, it is interesting to see how Syracuse stacks up over the years.

Big thanks to Steven for doing the research on this. His work is below.

Here is the Boeheim Era. I put + or - at the end depending on whether Syracuse finished higher or lower in the last poll and the same for the NCAA round they wound up in.

If a team finished with the same ranking or lost in the round projected by their pre-season ranking, I gave them an “E”. A #11 team preseason would be expected to make the Sweet 16, for example, but not the Elite 8.

An unranked team can only be compared to a round that could have been included within the Top 20, (which it was through 1988-89) or the Top 25, so making the Sweet 16 would be better than you’d expect for an unranked team. But an unranked team could lose in the round of 32 and not exceed expectations since only 20-25 teams are ranked.

Any team ranked in the preseason would be expected to be in the NCAA tournament. The Final poll is post NCAA tournament from 1994 onward and it’s only the coach’s poll.

Summary:
++ 77,84,87,94,96,98,00,03,09,10 (the regular season and NCAA result were better than expected 10 times)
-- 78,81,85,86,88,90,95,97,99,02,04,05,06,07,11 (the regular season and NCAA results were worse that expected 15 times)
EE 82,83,89,08 (the regular season and NCAA results were what was expected 4 times0
+E 79,80,92,01 (the regular season was better than expected but the NCAA result was the same four times)
+- 91 (the regular season was better than expected but the post season was worse once)
Those were the only combinations of results.

Teams that were ranked in the top 5 preseason, (by either poll), finished worse than that in the final poll and in the tournament all three times.

Teams that were ranked in the top 10 preseason finished worse than that in both the regular season and the tournament seven out of nines times. They finished where expected in both once and in the other they had a better regular season but finished where expected in the tournament.

Teams that wound up ranked in the top 5, (in either poll), started out #9/#13, #3/#2, unranked, unranked and unranked/#25 in the two polls.

The other top ten teams were unranked, #12, #4/#6, #15/#13, #1/#2, #8 and #13/#10

The teams that made it at least to the Elite 8 were ranked #15/#13, #8, unranked and unranked.